• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

So what's the truth about Cholesterol

The thing is tho' its easier to dish out drugs without finding out what the underlying problem is. Most Gp's don't want the hassle of dealing with difficult patients ie those ones who want to know about their condtion, they are more of a pain because it means the doc has to work harder.
 
dawnmc said:
The thing is tho' its easier to dish out drugs without finding out what the underlying problem is. Most Gp's don't want the hassle of dealing with difficult patients ie those ones who want to know about their condtion, they are more of a pain because it means the doc has to work harder.

Ive found the opposite to be true and that doctors positively encourage patients to be proactive in their care, they may be pushed for time with over booked appointments but have always given me answers to anything Ive asked.

No one likes dealing with difficult people Dawn, do you?

There are ways to ask questions and ways to get your point across without being difficult, if you reach an impasse with your doctor over something then simply state that after consideration you would like to do it your way and thank your doctor for their input and leave it at that. If you never close the door you can always go back and ask their advice again.

I had a great doctor for almost 18 years and was sad when he was replaced at my local surgery last year, since then I have built a good rapport with his replacement and I can confirm that he is shaping up quite nicely :lol: Actually he seems very knowledgeable and approachable. Have I been lucky? Quite possibly - but I have never been difficult.
 
librarising said:
jopar wrote
As Sid said, Briffa background is basically selling a particular diet to individuals

well, in his own words :

I’m a naturally-oriented medical doctor, author and speaker. My work is dedicated to providing honest and trustworthy holistic health advice that can be used to combat and prevent illness, overcome everyday ailments, enhance energy and bring a greater sense of wellbeing. The advice and information you’ll find on this site is based on a mix of published as well as what I’ve learned works (and does not work) during 20 years of clinical practice as a doctor.

If you had a GP like that would you distrust them ? I only wish my GP was working in my interests like Dr Briffa claims to.
Oh I forgot he's an author. That's lower than a politician.

Lets shoot the messenger. That's been going on in medical research for decades. Just in a quieter way.

Geoff

Who do I trust with my care and who's got my best interest in mind!

My consultant followed by my GP!

Purely because they are privy to my medical history a very important part of my care!

I actually don't take statin's, as after discussing the pro's and con's of them with my consultant, that as I've already got good cholesterol I don't need to take them...

So my decision isn't based on that Briffa is an author or touts a dietary regime that I don't follow, it's based on being involved in my own healthcare over the years, and working out who I entrust to give me advise that benefits and is in my own interest, that isn't based on their personally opinion, as after all that what Briffa information is, his personal opinion to what different research has said or not said...

And I will necessary question my consultants and gp if I feel what they are saying isn't in my best interest, and even research what they said to see if I do or don't agree with what they said and/or what they are basing their information on!
 
I take aspirin for the headache caused by the Zyrtec I take for the hayfever I got from Relenza from the uneasy stomach from the Ritalin I take for the short attention span caused by the Scopederm Ts I take for the motion sickness I got from the Lomotil I take for the diarrhea caused by the Zenikal for the uncontrolled weight gain from the Paxil I take for the anxiety from the Zocor I take for my high cholesterol because exercise, a good diet,and regular chiropractic care are just too much trouble. :lol: :lol: :lol: How true.
 
Sid Bonkers said:
borofergie said:
Sid Bonkers said:
Can you qualify "less clear" borofergie as less clear hardly sounds definitive to me?

Yes. There is no-clear evidence that statins have a benefit in people without a history of CVD (that includes me and you, I hope). That's as definitive as science gets, you could never show that there was absolutely no benefit.

OK so I understand where you're coming from with the 'less clear' thing, but it sounds so definite when you say it, not less clear at all :lol:

Those weren't my words, they were a direct quote from the Cochrane Review (who are supposed to be the most impartial of impartial sources). I presume that they were very well considered.

Sid Bonkers said:
Could it also be that diabetics could be added to that proviso too? Not saying we are (more at risk) but I do hear many people being told that diabetics are at a higher risk of cardio vascular stuff.
As you know my cholesterol is pretty good at 4.1 and although Ive not had a full lipid profile done in the last year or so the last one in 2010 showed my trigs at .4 or something and previous ones were never more than .8, which is why I assume they stopped the fasting blood tests for me in 2010.
But perhaps I may benefit from a statin as some have mentioned for reasons other than cholesterol. Ive never been offered one to date but I would definitely listen to my doctor should he suggest I take one, especially if he gave me good enough reasons

It could be that we are at high-risk Sid, although me and you demonstrate that not all diabetics have cholesterol problems. I can't imagine with a Total Cholesterol of 3.6mmol/l that I'm high risk on any scale - athough, to be fair, no-one has ever suggested that I take statins.

They definitely have a role. Nigel talked about his brother who had a cholesterol of 9mmol/l, which he managed to control with statins and other measures. I can understand why Nigel would consider taking them under those circumstances (like Grant said, most of your cholesterol score is probably genetically determined).

I have no problem at all with statins if they are prescribed to the proper people and not, for example, women.

Sid Bonkers said:
Drifting off a bit here and not aimed at you but - I just dont get this paranoia some members seem to have towards drugs and the medical profession in general, all I have ever been given is good advice and on more than one occasion doctors have actually saved my life for which I am eternally grateful :clap: These same people often seem quite happy to take a selection of vitamins and herbal remedies which have never undergone any testing at all but baulk at the idea of taking a 'drug'. They're all drugs at the end of the day, arent they?

Perhaps it's a fair criticism. I'm not one of them though. I'd happily take any drug that would help me. I wish they'd give me my metformin back and, if the day comes, I'll be happy to take insulin too.

What I was objecting to was the lipid hypothesis, which says:
  1. Statins reduce cholesterol
  2. Statins reduce CV mortaility (for some people)
  3. Dietary fat increases cholesterol
  4. Dietary fat therefore increases CV mortality

Not only is (3) wrong, but there is absolutely no evidence of (4). This flawed logic is at the heart of all the bad dietary advice pumped out by the NHS, DUK, BHF, ADA, etc, etc, etc. It's both unscientific and harmful to those that follow it.
 
jopar said:
I actually don't take statin's, as after discussing the pro's and con's of them with my consultant, that as I've already got good cholesterol I don't need to take them...

If your consultant was in any way competent, you would never have had that conversation with her.

Nobody has ever demonstrated a reduction in mortality by prescribing stains to females. The fact that she even discussed it with you suggests that her advice has no grounds in science. I'd do my own research and look for a better consultant if I was you.
 
borofergie said:
jopar said:
I actually don't take statin's, as after discussing the pro's and con's of them with my consultant, that as I've already got good cholesterol I don't need to take them...

If your consultant was in any way competent, you would never have had that conversation with her.

Nobody has ever demonstrated a reduction in mortality by prescribing stains to females. The fact that she even discussed it with you suggests that her advice has no grounds in science. I'd do my own research and look for a better consultant if I was you.

Now I actually find this post quite offensive on several levels!

Firstly,it comes across as being based from a very chauvinistic and arrogant opinion indeed..

Arrogance that you believe that you are qualified or even competent to judge an individuals medical knowledge that you've never even met, or even know there view points of diabetic care!

Chauvinistic as it seems that you have a low opinion of females!

But thank you, I am more than happy with my consultant who happen's to be a very competent person, so I shall be taking the advise from an individual, very unqualified individual on the internet forum who thinks that he knows better!

As I am more than competent to make my own decisions where my own health is concerned!
 
jopar said:
Now I actually find this post quite offensive on several levels!

Firstly,it comes across as being based from a very chauvinistic and arrogant opinion indeed..

Arrogance that you believe that you are qualified or even competent to judge an individuals medical knowledge that you've never even met, or even know there view points of diabetic care!

Chauvinistic as it seems that you have a low opinion of females!

But thank you, I am more than happy with my consultant who happen's to be a very competent person, so I shall be taking the advise from an individual, very unqualified individual on the internet forum who thinks that he knows better!

As I am more than competent to make my own decisions where my own health is concerned!

I never expressed any opinion of females. I hold them in the highest regard. I despise any type of prejudice or discrimination.

I was simply pointing out that there is no benefit to prescribing statins to women. I'm afraid that is a scientific fact. If you don't agree then kindly present some evidence that suggests otherwise.

No competent consultant would ever prescribe statins to a woman. There is no scientific evidence that suggests it is beneficial.

I stand by that opinion, and frankly I resent you insulting me like this. Don't project your own prejudices onto other people.

Kendrick said:
To date, no large trial of women statin users who already have cardiovascular disease has been shown to increase life expectancy by one day. More importantly, the use of statins in women at lower risk has not increased life expectancy nor prevented heart attacks and stroke.

It raises the question whether women should be prescribed statins at all. I believe that the answer is no. Statins fail to provide any overall health benefit in women. The more recent heart protection study was hailed as a success for men and women, but despite the hype there was no effect on mortality in women.

If you’re on a statin because you’re at high risk of cardiovascular disease and you have muscle pain, it’s worth taking the vitamin-like substance Coenzyme Q 10. Statins cause levels of this to fall in the body. I’ve seen no evidence that taking it causes harm.

Eddie Vos responding to Cochrane review said:
What the editorial does not mention are differences with women, and where there is no doubt that there is no mortality benefit, as per at least three meta-analyses. Two of them found a relative risk [RR] of 1.00 versus placebo, including one including secondary prevention, and one concluding: "Our study showed that statin therapy reduced the risk of CHD events in men without prior cardiovascular disease, but not in women. Statins did not reduce the risk of total mortality both in men and women"

Suggesting that women at any cardiac risk reduce all-cause deaths by taking statins is, at best, a statistics-derived artifact with unclear but massive numbers needed to treat, and at worst, a delusion or a deception. The reality: even in extreme-risk women in the much-cited 4S study,[5] there were three more deaths in women on statin than on placebo.

I suggest that in a next analysis women and men should be treated separately, and this regarding all single individual endpoints. The universally abused reporting item of "major cardiovascular events" should be banished, since it virtually always includes non-fatal angina-related effects, including medical decisions such as non-life-saving planned revascularisations. For example, in JUPITER, revascularisations were by far the major "event" benefit and, in women, the only significant one after 6500 on-statin years … and cardiovascular mortality was not reduced in either men or women.[6]

When any-cause deaths are not reduced by drugs prescribed for a fatal disease, we are treating either lesser value effects, numbers in lab reports or other surrogate endpoints but not real causes.[7] That is the case for statins in women, a mathematical certainty.
 
I'm not going to comment on the topic, so admit I am taking this on a tangent, but feel I must. Stephen (Borofergie) has with others been a complete rock to me, and I am female. In public on the board, and in private via PM or Email he has been there 100% for me, and I just feel I have to say this. Stephen is absolutely unprejudiced. He is a married man who adores his wife, and will also go above and beyond to help others, no matter what or who they are. To say he has a low opinion of females is WRONG very wrong. In public and in private Stephen is a complete gentleman, who deserves better than what he has been called!!
 
borofergie said:
I never expressed any opinion of females. I hold them in the highest regard. I despise any type of prejudice or discrimination..

Err I'm afraid you did..

borogfergie said:
If your consultant was in any way competent, you would never have had that conversation with her.

As here you can see, you've referred to to my consultant as being her when I actually haven't said what sex my consultant is!

But there again, you making assumption concerning what I've have said, as where in any of my posts to this thread, have I said that anybody let alone a female should or shouldn't be taking statins as a preventive measure!

If you read my comments, I believe that everybody needs to look at the research available and make their own minds up, concerning whether they want to take a statin or not! So really can't see why you asking me to prove something I hadn't said or inferred!
 
jopar said:
As here you can see, you've referred to to my consultant as being her when I actually haven't said what sex my consultant is!!

What? Presuming that a highly qualified Consultant is a woman is sexist? Would you prefer that I assumed that all Consultants are men?

For your information, I write professionally and I take great care not to cast typical male roles as "him" or "he".

jopar said:
But there again, you making assumption concerning what I've have said, as where in any of my posts to this thread, have I said that anybody let alone a female should or shouldn't be taking statins as a preventive measure!

If you read my comments, I believe that everybody needs to look at the research available and make their own minds up, concerning whether they want to take a statin or not! So really can't see why you asking me to prove something I hadn't said or inferred!

I'm not making any assumptions, I was simply responding to the point that you've discussed the pros and cons of taking statins with your consultant. By the fact you are female, that would have been a very short conversation with any competent specialist for the reasons I have discussed above.

Try addressing the science for a change, and not resorting to slanderous insults.
 
Guy's and Gal's we are going off piste with this one, can we get back on track? Statins remember!! are they valid or not and what's the pro's and Con's.
 
Guys,

This looks like it is about to spiral into one of those pointless arguments again that de-rails the thread and simply undermines the credibility of the forum. Please both (all) let it go this time eh?

Smidge
 
RoyG said:
Guy's and Gal's we are going off piste with this one, can we get back on track? Statins remember!! are they valid or not and what's the pro's and Con's.

I am on Simvastatin. I have my HbA1c in a weeks time, and will see my GP a week after that. I personally would like to come of statins. My GP really is one of the good ones, so I will listen to what he says, but I would prefer to be statin free if my cholesterol is low enough.
 
Defren said:
RoyG said:
Guy's and Gal's we are going off piste with this one, can we get back on track? Statins remember!! are they valid or not and what's the pro's and Con's.

I am on Simvastatin. I have my HbA1c in a weeks time, and will see my GP a week after that. I personally would like to come of statins. My GP really is one of the good ones, so I will listen to what he says, but I would prefer to be statin free if my cholesterol is low enough.

Like I said above Def, there is no evidence that statins have any benefit to women. You should talk to HIM and ask HIM to justify the evidence behind HIS decision to prescribe them.

So much for "evidence based medicine".
 
borofergie said:
RoyG said:
Guy's and Gal's we are going off piste with this one, can we get back on track? Statins remember!! are they valid or not and what's the pro's and Con's.

I just explained why they weren't valid for at least 50% of the population.
And your doing an admiral job borofergie, with plenty of good scientific documentation to promote your point, The more information posted here the easier it will be to see all sides.
 
I have not had any heart problems, but have Hypertension. So I suspect that they could be of some benefit, but then metformin have similar benefits do they not.
 
borofergie said:
Defren said:
RoyG said:
Guy's and Gal's we are going off piste with this one, can we get back on track? Statins remember!! are they valid or not and what's the pro's and Con's.

I am on Simvastatin. I have my HbA1c in a weeks time, and will see my GP a week after that. I personally would like to come of statins. My GP really is one of the good ones, so I will listen to what he says, but I would prefer to be statin free if my cholesterol is low enough.

Like I said above Def, there is no evidence that statins have any benefit to women. You should talk to HIM and ask HIM to justify the evidence behind HIS decision to prescribe them.

So much for "evidence based medicine".

I read something about this myself recently Stephen, and it was that, that made me rethink my own statin use. As you know, I am very lucky and my GP is great, if I ask him to justify keeping me on statins and he can't, he will say so and take me off them. I just don't feel happy being on them. My cholesterol was only slightly raised, so should be really ok this time. No need for me to be on them now.

It does seem as if the first line defense for all newly diagnoses diabetics is Metformin and Statins. I get the Metformin, not sure why statins are handed out like Smarties.
 
Back
Top